Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-14-Speech-2-323"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20060214.28.2-323"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
"Mr President, next year will be the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, when the European Economic Community called for the abolition of the obstacles to the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital as the main objectives towards achieving a common or internal market. In relation to services, however, we have had over 50 years of Member State protectionism and restrictive practices, from complicated bureaucratic hurdles and time delays to financial penalties to obscure qualification requirements. In Austria, foreign ski instructors cannot provide services for more than 14 days. In Belgium and France, emergency repairs can only be done after an eight-day prior notification, which is a contradiction in itself. In order to place temporary pilots and aircraft engineers with an airline in Italy, a EUR 400 000 deposit and the establishment of four offices are required. And each one of those barriers is invariably justified by invoking the specious but emotive defence of preventing a ‘race to the bottom’. Protectionist Member States pose as champions of the workers against social dumping. In practice, they are encouraging a rampant black economy. In fact, those countries that have embraced the enlarged EU market have grown from strength to strength. Since 1993 the free movement of goods, capital and persons has yielded enormous economic and social gains. Nearly 70% of the working population in Europe is involved in the services sector, which represents 55% of the EU’s GDP, but, at present, services account for only 20% of trade between Member States. The incomplete market has created nearly EUR 1 000 billion of prosperity and 2.5 million additional jobs in Europe. The Services Directive could deliver 600 000 jobs more. There are a limited number of services – especially health services – that should have sector-specific measures. I welcome Commissioner McCreevy’s undertaking to propose a separate directive on patient mobility and the whole issue of cross-border health service provision. However, I support the remaining provisions of what is already an emaciated directive. It is particularly important that the temporary workers’ agencies are not excluded from the scope, given the extent to which staffing and recruitment agencies are used in a modern, flexible labour market. And why are transport workers and childcare workers excluded? I support the provisions of Article 16 wholeheartedly ..."@en1
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph